Just Posted: Update to Sony RX100 II Samples Gallery

We've just posted an update to our samples gallery taken with the new 20MP Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II. Now that we've had a little more time with the camera we've concentrated on getting a wider range of real-world shots, highlighting the potential of the camera's fast wideangle lens setting, and its improved low-light performance.

Click the links below to see our expanded gallery of real-world samples, and to visit our previously-published hands-on preview of the new camera, which features a 20MP BSI CMOS sensor and 28-100mm equivalent zoom lens.

Comments

I got my RX100 M2 last week, and so far I have to say it's very impressive. For me, the low light capability in something so small is fantastic. Sure, it's not a DSLR with a prime, but for something in the pocket it's brill.

Here are some samples ....

http://regolith.org/blog/2013/08/10/mr-bombastic/

Admittedly not tack sharp, but given how dark it was I'm pretty happy so far.

It's not a complete dealbreaker for me to have that feature since the IQ looks amazing for a P&S however I do like using it from time to time on my Canon S100--just for fun. I found the Panasonic LF1 has the same feature as the Canon but I can't figure out if the RX100 II can do it. I only found the manual of the RX100 stating it can snap photos in "miniature" effect but not videos.

Three things I notice from these samples are well exposed shots, clean shadows, and lots of detail in the highlights. As someone who often uses a compact camera, that isn't a common combination. RAW would presumably give you another stop or two of latitude (though that is a guess) either way, and the high ISO looks pretty clean too. Impressive.

Agreed. This is exactly why I've pre-ordered this. Also the RX1/R, because I'm a curious idiot... one will be going back... I'm just not sure I could do the RX1/R justice and this one looks an incredible alternative

Wow, looking at the graphs on DxO the RX100 and RX100II are virtually identical. For the overall score their is a 1 point difference. My guess is Sony is applying even more NR to jpegs which kills detail but makes jpegs look better at higher ISOs. As for the RAW files, DxO found them to be almost exactly the same.

No-RAW Sony cameras have much better jpegs colours than RX-100 IMO. I am amazed that I need to "fix" the images on a $650 camera...Hope for a firmware update soon, or for the next gen of Canon and Olympus cameras with a sensor equivalent to the RX100.

Is the articulating LCD screen helpful for bright sunlight also besides being able to shoot from the hip? I don't have a need for the hotshoe since i don't plan to get an EVF. If the lcd screen really improved on the brigth sunlight then i would likely get the RX100II...otherwise, i think i will buy the RX100.

I own a RX100 and I have to tell you, the colors look the same... and that is a bad thing.The IQ on the camera is awsome, but it is biggest problem are the colours... specially skin tones... If you are looking to buy this camera for its jpegs you are in for a bad surprise.

honestly what do you need a zoom lens for on a snapshot camera. its not like i am going to shoot sports or head shots with it. The fixed lens allows you to have a quality sensor in and a quality lens meet together in compact package in a way that is not otherwise possible. Zoom is overated for snapshot photography it really is rarely needed. certainly wouldnt choose either to be my only camera

Yes GR V can fit in a pocket, I would say, but it's fixed lens camera and it doesn't really have lowlight advantage that comes with APSC sensor, as the lens is one stop slower (F2.8 GR V vs F1.8 on RX100 II).

honestly what do you need a zoom lens for on a snapshot camera. its not like i am going to shoot sports or head shots with it. The fixed lens allows you to have a quality sensor in and a quality lens meet together in compact package in a way that is not otherwise possible. Zoom is overated for snapshot photography it really is rarely needed. certainly wouldnt choose either to be my only camera

so i looked at DXOs ratings on the sensor got to say not impressed. Wasnt the idea of this newer and more expensive model to have better low light. It impoved by just a third a stop. its hard to even call that an incremental improvement it is hardly better at all.

1/3 of a stop is not that bad at all , in one years separing the 2 sensors even with the BSI technologie we could'nt expect much more.The add of the tilting screen and hot shoes while keeping the same size is also a worthing improvement!

They weren't unfocused - they were however shot in an extremely compressed timeframe on a crappy day (when we shoot for preview samples galleries we have to do so veryveryquickly and very close to our office).

Barney, c'mon now man. I love the work that you guys do and love this site but don't go down that road. If you can't post fair and realistic examples of what a camera can do why post them at all? It's not fair to the manufacturer or to the customers here who are trying to figure out how best to spend our hard earned dollars, know what I mean? The reviews in general are very well written and you guys do a great job but don't compromise it by saying you didn't have the time to take quality shots, or at least explain it when posting the original samples. (And maybe it was, I haven't seen them but based on that question and your response that is what I assumed, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Barney, your comment will make people think that the RX100 can't take good shots in a "crappy day". If you have to have a nice day to get nice pictures, my iPhone 5 can do that but we all know RX100 is 100x better than iPhone 5.

@Tommygun - I don't really see your point. When we get pre-release cameras, on the very rare occasions we're allowed to actually shoot with them, we usually have an extremely short time available to us to do it.

In the case of the RX100 II, I pretty much ran out of the office for a couple of hours one day before it started raining, took a few hurried shots that evening, and the next day the camera was in the studio all day, while we wrote the preview, and then the product was announced.

This is the point - we do what we can to get pictures on the site for you, then we follow-up when we have more time, post-announcement (when we don't have to hide the camera from view every time someone comes down the street towards us.)

The initial preview gallery was OK, given the contraints, but it wasn't the greatest, so I wanted to update it as soon as possible.

My point is, if I worked at Motor Trend and Ferrari gave me a car to write a review about, I wouldn't drive it down a dirt road to see how it handled or how fast it went just to be the first one to 'post my results.' Thanks for 'updating it as soon as possible' but you realize what that does right? When you post sub par photos or reviews of a product in a 'time constrained' manner are you being fair? I'm not some crazed Sony fanboy, just being a realist here.

Nice gallery? Where do you see my gallery? Shot for Armani and Audi, what about you? Fruitcake. PM me to see my gallery. It's wannabees like you on the forums that give photography a bad name. The sample images were decent and served their purpose. You, are a effing gearhead. Wannabee.

Your shots are beautiful and at times visceral. One of the lake pictures reminded me of a backpacking trip in the High Sierras in California (picture #DSC00372). When looking at that one lake shot, I felt I could reach right into that shore water and stir up the underlying silt. Now that you have a broader realistic life feel for the RX100 Mark II, any chance that you could provide a comparison series of maybe 10-15 side by side tripod RX100 vs. RX100 Mark II shots similar to the pictures provided above? Other than low light shots, some now are reporting that still shots of the RX100 are actually sharper than the RX100 II. So, such a comparison series of shots would be very educational.

And, Barney: For such a Sony RX100 vs. RX100 Mark II comparison study, it would be really interesting to see the untouched photo shots from both of the cameras side by side; and, then the finished pictures side by side to see what each of the cameras ultimately is capable of achieving.... Thanks!

Absolutely love my RX100 and it's my go to small camera (the OM-D being my fav larger camera). Am curious to see a comparison for shots taken with the new vs. Original ......but am hardly disappointed with the RX100 now so doubt there is much they have done to warrant an upgrade or buying the new cam at a premium vs the RX100 at a discount. Oh and the slightly larger size/tilt rear LCD has no appeal to me.

Please do a direct image comparison (with foreground and background elements to show blur amount and character) between the RX100 II and the Ricoh GR wide open at 28mm 35mm and 50mm equivalents. (interestingly the GR cropped to "1 inch" sensor size gives 50mm equivalent)

I took a look myself and couldn't see much in it. The hair on the dummy looked pretty un-detailed in both at that ISO. The nex did look more flattering though. The 35mm crop mode would be best to be used with the GR in that situation. As for size, the 3n body is the same at 34.6mm but the 16-50 adds a further 30mm, so for jacket poketability they are similar but the GR is just slim enough to be pant pocketable, which isn't the case with the nex unless you transport the lens separately. But you are right that at that price it is very attractive, and I actually will now look at that as a serious option so thanks.

No matter how you slice it, the bokeh is still weak is nothing dramatic different than those smaller sensor point and shoot. For that money i would just EOS M with pan cake 20mm for less than half the price.

@cadet....I am with you there..someone will ask for pocket camera suggestions and ultimately be directed to a Canon Rebel. Camera and sensor size matters. Mention that the RX1 has great IQ and you can bet someone will bring up the LX7. Huh?

Even the LX7 isn't pocketable in the way the RX100 is... Honestly, there IS no direct competition, that's why Sony can raise the price by a hundred bucks without batting an eye. The only cameras in the same category, e.g. pocketables with larger sensors/control ring/RAW, all cost half as much (give or take) and they all have 1/1.17 sensors (S110, P330, LF1, etc, there's not that many to begin with...).

If you want bokeh then there's things out there called full frame cameras.

Plus, look at magnum photographers. OHHH SOO MUCH BOKEH right? Not really. Pocketable, good high iso, decent zoom range with large aperture, stop moaning and use the tool that will achieve your artistic vision.

CameraDebate blog (July 11, 2013) actually has compared the Sony RX100 Mark II , a compact interchangeable lens camera and an SLR camera to each other. Taking into account the importance of choosing based on the purpose of a camera, for a compact camera and an overall achiever, they still chose the RX100 Mark II. Pretty impressive.

Not exactly but de DOF of a 50mm is also reasonable and I have to take more pictures from the hip as they do not see me shooting. For that I use at least aperture 8. The following pictures are made in Paris with my D700http://www.pictureplaza.nl/barend/parijs/

I think some people are missing the whole point of a small pocket camera -- it's the camera you can always take with you. To dinner, on a walk, whatever, it can always be there. This alone is very valuable, and why the RX series has become so popular.

@Tapper123...Good attempt to get attamole to understand but if his/her post wasn't sarcasm I have to wonder if he/she is capable of getting the huge vs small camera concept. Some people just don't get it.

DPR team, can you comment (yet) on the RX100 II compared to the original RX100, in terms of sharpness and color saturation? As you know, there has been concern on the Sony Cyber-Shot forum about this, due to comparisons made between early sample shots.

Is your copy of the II exhibiting any such issues in your opinion? If so, can changing in-camera settings (i.e. sharpening and saturation) produce images more similar to those from the original model?

We're really just starting our testing - as soon as we've been able to get a good set of studio samples to compare against other cameras (including RX100) we'll add them to our previously-published content.